Today, my paper, the Albuquerque Journal, put the conviction of corrupt Republican Senator Ted Stevens on the last page of the front section. Where did your paper put the story? Last night CBS and NBC featured the story.
This is important. This kind of corruption is not only history making, but our media need to feature public governmental corruption in order to keep public informed and the system honest.
For only the fifth time in history a sitting Senator of the United States became a convicted felon. In fact, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven felonies. He was the senior U.S. Senator, the longest serving senator, the ranking member and former chairperson of the most important Senate committee, the appropriations committee.
It is the committee that controls all spending bills and all earmarks. Earmarks are those spending appropriations which are never debated by the legislature. This Senator had more to say about money matters than any other Republican. People owed him! He had incredible power.
That he was beyond his time and out of touch was never in doubt. He most famously referred to the internet as a group of “tubes” in last year’s famous debate over net neutrality, coming down on the side of the big telecoms.
As chairman, he refused to allow Big Oil’s CEOs to be sworn in at a hearing (a singularly unique breach of custom). One now has to wonder why he would do such a favor for them. Did he get something in return?
He was one of the most arrogant of the famous club of one hundred millionaires.
More importantly, this man typified what is most wrong with our system of government. People fight, dig and scratch to become politicians, get elected, and, then, get rich. Common people like you and I sigh and scratch our heads, but the fact remains.
Whether mayors, county commissioners, city councilors, state or national legislators, these people almost always wind up living way beyond their meager salaries. With the Ted Stevens case, one source of their largesse is clearly revealed. Private corporations and/or business do them “favors.”
In this case $250,000 worth of improvements were done to Stevens’ home. He somehow was unaware that they had come for free.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need more investigation and reporting like this. Why? Simply put, to help keep our legislators honest.
If you think a friend might be interested in reading about the media's untold and underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them. I'll put them on my list.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great October 28th,
Bob
Winner: The Holroyd-Sherry Award for Excellence
in Media Education by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Boston, October, 2008
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Financial Crisis Review = Inadequate
The Sunday Journal, Money Section (on how we got into this financial mess) did NOT include most of the following information. I think readers deserve better.
In April I warned about the economic danger of hedge funds and associated financial instruments, most importantly called derivatives and credit-default swaps(CDS). Sadly, the warning was prophetic, and our economy is falling apart, and not because of problem mortgages. Bad mortgages we could have handled; hedge funds we are struggling with.
Interestingly enough, in our current financial catastrophe the mainstream news (MSN) still refuses to discuss the role of hedge funds, derivatives and CDS. More importantly, the Presidential candidates are not talking about them either.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement to blame mortgages and generalized "greed on Wall Street" as the cause of the current crisis which has caused the FED to throw almost two TRILLION dollars at the problem (and the end is not in sight).
The lack of information is ominous, closely resembling censorship. It is more than an untold story; it verges on information control. I follow the mainstream news, and I have only seen Obama mention hedge funds once and McCain not at all.
CBS nightly news has talked about hedge funds three times and NBC twice. Two weeks ago there was a Sixty Minutes story that was very detailed and informative about derivatives and CDS. That is not much news for a crisis that has run over a month. We should all be hearing repeatedly about hedge funds, derivatives and CDS.
Don't get me wrong. I am not absolving don't Fannie, Freddie and the other causes of our crisis, but I am saying that more important topics are not being discussed in the MSN.
Leverage should be a major topic around the proverbial water cooler. We should all be talking about mortgage instruments that were leveraged twenty to three hundred times in various kinds of derivatives and, then, INSURED by CDS. After all, leverage did cause the Great Depression.
I have been waiting for Sixty Minutes' information to be verified by a responsible MSN source, and yesterday none other than Alan Greenspan did so, and he pointed out how wrong he was to leave these investment banks unregulated.
What's the total exposure? Believe it or not; we are talking about 50-60 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of highly leveraged, possibly worthless paper. That is the reason the markets are in the crapper, and that is the reason banks are failing left and right. Hundreds of people sold these schemes, made fortunes and should be on their way to jail, but where is the news?
Again, it bears repeating that leveraging assets at the margin was the cause of the Great Depression and the reason for the creation of the SEC, the FDIC and the FED. This is worse that the savings and loan scandal of the 80's that saw over 747 banks close due to the same kind of greed.
In April I quoted the SEC chairman, William Donaldson, who was fired by George Bush for trying to regulate hedge funds and CDS. As he said, "They are totally unregulated." That is why, for example, CDS are called swaps. If they were called insurance, they'd be regulated. As I noted in April Warren Buffet, John Bogle and Robert Kutner all agree about hedge fund dangers.
Now, here is the 64 zillion dollar question: why are the politicians and their media lapdogs avoiding the hedge fund issue?
I really don't know. I can only speculate that the pigs do not want this trough regulated.
I might further speculate that they want our tax dollars to stabilize their feed lots, so they can continue to take huge leveraged risks (now with our money) and possibly make zillions more in the future (instead of going to jail). If you have a better idea, please email me.
Remember, according to the Wall Street Journal, last year the 30 top hedge fund CEOs made an AVERAGE of one BILLION dollars in just that one year.
This needs to be talked about. Congress is holding hearings on regulating hedge funds. Last night, again, neither CBS nor NBC went into significant detail about these complex financial instruments. Write/call your Congressperson.
In April I warned about the economic danger of hedge funds and associated financial instruments, most importantly called derivatives and credit-default swaps(CDS). Sadly, the warning was prophetic, and our economy is falling apart, and not because of problem mortgages. Bad mortgages we could have handled; hedge funds we are struggling with.
Interestingly enough, in our current financial catastrophe the mainstream news (MSN) still refuses to discuss the role of hedge funds, derivatives and CDS. More importantly, the Presidential candidates are not talking about them either.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement to blame mortgages and generalized "greed on Wall Street" as the cause of the current crisis which has caused the FED to throw almost two TRILLION dollars at the problem (and the end is not in sight).
The lack of information is ominous, closely resembling censorship. It is more than an untold story; it verges on information control. I follow the mainstream news, and I have only seen Obama mention hedge funds once and McCain not at all.
CBS nightly news has talked about hedge funds three times and NBC twice. Two weeks ago there was a Sixty Minutes story that was very detailed and informative about derivatives and CDS. That is not much news for a crisis that has run over a month. We should all be hearing repeatedly about hedge funds, derivatives and CDS.
Don't get me wrong. I am not absolving don't Fannie, Freddie and the other causes of our crisis, but I am saying that more important topics are not being discussed in the MSN.
Leverage should be a major topic around the proverbial water cooler. We should all be talking about mortgage instruments that were leveraged twenty to three hundred times in various kinds of derivatives and, then, INSURED by CDS. After all, leverage did cause the Great Depression.
I have been waiting for Sixty Minutes' information to be verified by a responsible MSN source, and yesterday none other than Alan Greenspan did so, and he pointed out how wrong he was to leave these investment banks unregulated.
What's the total exposure? Believe it or not; we are talking about 50-60 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of highly leveraged, possibly worthless paper. That is the reason the markets are in the crapper, and that is the reason banks are failing left and right. Hundreds of people sold these schemes, made fortunes and should be on their way to jail, but where is the news?
Again, it bears repeating that leveraging assets at the margin was the cause of the Great Depression and the reason for the creation of the SEC, the FDIC and the FED. This is worse that the savings and loan scandal of the 80's that saw over 747 banks close due to the same kind of greed.
In April I quoted the SEC chairman, William Donaldson, who was fired by George Bush for trying to regulate hedge funds and CDS. As he said, "They are totally unregulated." That is why, for example, CDS are called swaps. If they were called insurance, they'd be regulated. As I noted in April Warren Buffet, John Bogle and Robert Kutner all agree about hedge fund dangers.
Now, here is the 64 zillion dollar question: why are the politicians and their media lapdogs avoiding the hedge fund issue?
I really don't know. I can only speculate that the pigs do not want this trough regulated.
I might further speculate that they want our tax dollars to stabilize their feed lots, so they can continue to take huge leveraged risks (now with our money) and possibly make zillions more in the future (instead of going to jail). If you have a better idea, please email me.
Remember, according to the Wall Street Journal, last year the 30 top hedge fund CEOs made an AVERAGE of one BILLION dollars in just that one year.
This needs to be talked about. Congress is holding hearings on regulating hedge funds. Last night, again, neither CBS nor NBC went into significant detail about these complex financial instruments. Write/call your Congressperson.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Journal Ignores Merrill Lynch
The financial crisis in this country is getting serious. My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal devoted half of its front page today to a 14 year-old who got in a fight (the lead story) and an epileptic baby--sad enough, but we had TWO MORE MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAIL over the weekend! The failure of Merrill Lynch is not worth the Journal's front page.
The Feds are still pouring many billions of $$ into saving Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several other failed institutions while the FDIC has said it expects over a hundred more banks to fail. A hundred more! (And all so sleazy bankers could make big bonuses giving out millions of sleazy loans!)
The Federal deficit is now over a half TRILLION dollars/year, yet both Presidential candidates say they want to cut taxes AND reduce Federal spending. Hello?? Anyone who has taken Econ 101 would ask "how?" We have a ton of debt and two expensive wars, and Afghanistan is fixing to get a whole lot more expensive.
The only way would be to borrow more from our enemies or print more money, which, BTW, the FED is doing. They call it "expanding the money supply."
Inflation just hit the highest level in decades--over 12% annually adjusted for a few months. At 12% you have to make 12% on your investments to break even.
Now, I actually taught Econ 101, and I agree with what the Journal said in its Sept. 14th article about inflation. Inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods."
However, the Journal did not say, and no commercial media is telling you the key fact. "Inflation is a TAX." The government spends money it does not have--inflating the money supply (yes, running the printing presses) to pay its obligations (wars, programs or payments on its debt), and, presto, your money will not by as much. You have been taxed! Politicians love inflation; it allows them to promise more stuff to the voters without "raising taxes."
This is not a partisan statement. It is an economic axiom. As Colbert would say. It is "truthiness."
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, ask your candidates about the economic facts of life. Here are two articles that should have been on today's Journal front page.
After Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Falter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times: "In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments."
Greenspan: Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/
The Associated Press: "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain - at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending. 'Unless we cut spending, no,' the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion. 'I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,' Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'I always have tied tax cuts to spending.'"
If you think a friend might be interested in reading the media's untold or underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great day,
Bob
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
The Feds are still pouring many billions of $$ into saving Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several other failed institutions while the FDIC has said it expects over a hundred more banks to fail. A hundred more! (And all so sleazy bankers could make big bonuses giving out millions of sleazy loans!)
The Federal deficit is now over a half TRILLION dollars/year, yet both Presidential candidates say they want to cut taxes AND reduce Federal spending. Hello?? Anyone who has taken Econ 101 would ask "how?" We have a ton of debt and two expensive wars, and Afghanistan is fixing to get a whole lot more expensive.
The only way would be to borrow more from our enemies or print more money, which, BTW, the FED is doing. They call it "expanding the money supply."
Inflation just hit the highest level in decades--over 12% annually adjusted for a few months. At 12% you have to make 12% on your investments to break even.
Now, I actually taught Econ 101, and I agree with what the Journal said in its Sept. 14th article about inflation. Inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods."
However, the Journal did not say, and no commercial media is telling you the key fact. "Inflation is a TAX." The government spends money it does not have--inflating the money supply (yes, running the printing presses) to pay its obligations (wars, programs or payments on its debt), and, presto, your money will not by as much. You have been taxed! Politicians love inflation; it allows them to promise more stuff to the voters without "raising taxes."
This is not a partisan statement. It is an economic axiom. As Colbert would say. It is "truthiness."
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, ask your candidates about the economic facts of life. Here are two articles that should have been on today's Journal front page.
After Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Falter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times: "In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments."
Greenspan: Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/
The Associated Press: "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain - at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending. 'Unless we cut spending, no,' the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion. 'I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,' Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'I always have tied tax cuts to spending.'"
If you think a friend might be interested in reading the media's untold or underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great day,
Bob
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
What Happened to 9-11?
How did your local paper treat today's anniversary of possibly the greatest catastrophe in U.S. history?
If you were living here in Albuquerque, depending on the Albuquerque Journal, you probably would not even know it was a special day.
Now, I must confess that I was jolted into action by an email from a friend who just wrote me and said, "I loved the Albuquerque Journal front page. 9/11 was not worthy of ANY mention on the front page??? But, luckily, we got to read about campaign signs and mountain lions. The Journal is so ****ed up." (I am sure she meant "messed" up.)
What does it say when the LEAD story in today's Journal was about some boys being sexually humiliated WEEKS ago? Yes, it was a sick tragedy, but, really, it was the Journal's third story about these poor kids, i.e., very old news. This sort of editing reminds one of the National Enquirer.
The Journal devoted almost a whole PAGE to Sarah Palin, but only a TINY mention on page seven about the anniversary of the date that has cost our country literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF DEAD, a DEVASTATED ECONOMY and much more!
9/11 affects our lives in so many ways. Our bridges are ancient, falling down, and we don't have the money to fix them. Our electric transmission system is prehistoric; our schools are ineffective; we are sending $700 Billion to our enemies every year for oil. The list goes on. Economists call this opportunity cost--the cost of what we are giving up because of what we are spending on the war on terror.
If you were living here in Albuquerque, depending on the Albuquerque Journal, you probably would not even know it was a special day.
Now, I must confess that I was jolted into action by an email from a friend who just wrote me and said, "I loved the Albuquerque Journal front page. 9/11 was not worthy of ANY mention on the front page??? But, luckily, we got to read about campaign signs and mountain lions. The Journal is so ****ed up." (I am sure she meant "messed" up.)
What does it say when the LEAD story in today's Journal was about some boys being sexually humiliated WEEKS ago? Yes, it was a sick tragedy, but, really, it was the Journal's third story about these poor kids, i.e., very old news. This sort of editing reminds one of the National Enquirer.
The Journal devoted almost a whole PAGE to Sarah Palin, but only a TINY mention on page seven about the anniversary of the date that has cost our country literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF DEAD, a DEVASTATED ECONOMY and much more!
9/11 affects our lives in so many ways. Our bridges are ancient, falling down, and we don't have the money to fix them. Our electric transmission system is prehistoric; our schools are ineffective; we are sending $700 Billion to our enemies every year for oil. The list goes on. Economists call this opportunity cost--the cost of what we are giving up because of what we are spending on the war on terror.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Journal Promotes Gambling
Gambling . . . Excuse me, I should use today's politically correct term, promoted by industry executives, lobbyists and legislators. "GAMING" is one of the largest industries in the U.S. It accounts for over $50 million in contributions politicians.
In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.
Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.
The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.
Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.
Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:
1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.
Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.
2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.
3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.
4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).
The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.
Sigh.
In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.
Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.
The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.
Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.
Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:
1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.
Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.
2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.
3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.
4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).
The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.
Sigh.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Missing Energy Solutions
For a week, I have been monitoring CBS and NBC's national news' coverage of the energy crisis. Each night they give us a "new record" in gas and oil prices, and "discuss" the controversy. Their debate is almost always framed as a choice between "drilling" and "conservation."
The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.
Shale oil, hydrogen cars, reporting on hybrid sales, and environmental stories are also covered along with the rare story on corn ethanol driving up the price of food. Along the way, we are subjected to interminable statements by industry "experts" who are usually lobbyists.
Now and then, one hears the words, "alternative energy sources," but they are seldom explored with any serious or persuasive intent, and of course, this whole charade is surrounded by oil company advertisements which tell us how Big Oil loves us and is looking out for our interests.
My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal, is no better. It ran a lead story on "NM's Energy Gurus (6-15-08)" and in a full page and a half of questioning our two Senators, who chair the Senate Energy Committee, the word "SOLAR" is only mentioned once (tangentially) and "WIND" not at all!
When the Senate refused to renew tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, the Journal put the story in Section C (6-18-08). Imagine that, with $4 gasoline the Senate will not renew solar and wind energy credits, and it is not a front page story!
Two week later (6-2-08) the Journal's front page story was "Public Says Drill." It highlighted only two solutions for our energy crisis, more drilling or conservation with nuclear and alternative energy mentioned only in passing. It mentioned drilling in ANWR three times.
Today's Journal article, "Time for Energy Debate?" gives readers the same old choices--drill more or conserve--not a word about renewable sources of energy.
What do you think?
Why do we see so little about alternative energy in our news?
Some say that if we had spent the $150 Billion economic "stimulus" package (that we borrowed) on wind and solar, instead of giving most of us a $600 check, we would be on our way to energy independence, building whole new industries with good jobs and employing legions of Americans for decades and lowering the price of oil.
Many scientists say there is enough solar power in NM to free the whole country from mideast oil. They say the same thing about wind in North Dakota.
Could Big Oil and Big Coal be tilting our news, both national and local? Are they afraid of energy sources that they cannot control?
Something to think about.
Have a great Fourth of July weekend.
The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.
Shale oil, hydrogen cars, reporting on hybrid sales, and environmental stories are also covered along with the rare story on corn ethanol driving up the price of food. Along the way, we are subjected to interminable statements by industry "experts" who are usually lobbyists.
Now and then, one hears the words, "alternative energy sources," but they are seldom explored with any serious or persuasive intent, and of course, this whole charade is surrounded by oil company advertisements which tell us how Big Oil loves us and is looking out for our interests.
My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal, is no better. It ran a lead story on "NM's Energy Gurus (6-15-08)" and in a full page and a half of questioning our two Senators, who chair the Senate Energy Committee, the word "SOLAR" is only mentioned once (tangentially) and "WIND" not at all!
When the Senate refused to renew tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, the Journal put the story in Section C (6-18-08). Imagine that, with $4 gasoline the Senate will not renew solar and wind energy credits, and it is not a front page story!
Two week later (6-2-08) the Journal's front page story was "Public Says Drill." It highlighted only two solutions for our energy crisis, more drilling or conservation with nuclear and alternative energy mentioned only in passing. It mentioned drilling in ANWR three times.
Today's Journal article, "Time for Energy Debate?" gives readers the same old choices--drill more or conserve--not a word about renewable sources of energy.
What do you think?
Why do we see so little about alternative energy in our news?
Some say that if we had spent the $150 Billion economic "stimulus" package (that we borrowed) on wind and solar, instead of giving most of us a $600 check, we would be on our way to energy independence, building whole new industries with good jobs and employing legions of Americans for decades and lowering the price of oil.
Many scientists say there is enough solar power in NM to free the whole country from mideast oil. They say the same thing about wind in North Dakota.
Could Big Oil and Big Coal be tilting our news, both national and local? Are they afraid of energy sources that they cannot control?
Something to think about.
Have a great Fourth of July weekend.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Journal needs to Take Econ 101
I teach history, economics and the media. Our media leave many issues "untold," so I have started this e-list, going to 500+ leaders, citizens and media. It is devoted to "untold stories"--information and viewpoints which are important, but covered inconsequentially in our media.
This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.
Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.
They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.
Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.
Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.
How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.
Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.
How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.
To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!
Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!
Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?
One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.
This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.
Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.
This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.
Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.
They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.
Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.
Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.
How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.
Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.
How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.
To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!
Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!
Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?
One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.
This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.
Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)